OK, so what would your policy be to address the situation of US citizens joining with non-state groups and actively attacking the US? Like, say, Al-Qaida? International law of war is weak on non-state actors, classifying them as “irregulars” or bandits and relying on their host states to deal with them, which is unrealistic in many cases, and which fails to anticipate the rise of such groups with global reach. And the notion of adjudicating matters like this in the courts in advance makes no sense either.

Because I wouldn’t shed a tear for anyone like that who got killed, whether by aerial bombardment, a drone strike, an artillery shell or a bullet. Al-Awlaki, the poster child for the drone-strike handwringers, was in an AQ camp in Yemen at the time his propagandistic ass was blown up. If ridding the world of him and his fellow jihadis means no Peace Prize, fine. Small price to pay.

And why is it that the same hand-wringers act as if drone strikes are somehow different than any other way of the military killing someone? The meme reeks of emotional manipulation. Dead’s dead.

To declare an interest and give some context, I vocally and publicly opposed the second Gulf War and am against the US’s habit of heavyhanded, ineffectual military interventions. But if someone’s actually coming for you and you have the means to send them on to the afterlife, you’re worse than a fool if you don’t do it.